State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Kavinder Singh, vs Reliance Communications on 4 December, 2007
IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under section 9 clause (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.) Date of decision : 4.12.2007 1. Appeal No. A-07/757 (Arising from order dated 31.8.2007 passed by the District Forum (North), Tis Hazari, Delhi in Compliant case No. C-266/07) Sh. Kavinder Singh, Prop. Of M/s V.K. Garments, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi 110084 Appellant Through Sh. S.K. Rai, Advocate Versus 1. Reliance Communications Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group, Reliance Communciations Ltd. Vijaya Building, 17, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi 110001 2. Reliance Infocom Ltd. 11th Floor, Vijaya Building, 17, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi 110001 3. Reliance Industries Ltd. Registered Office at 3rd Floor, Maker Chambers IV, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Respondents 2. Appeal No. A-07/758 (Arising from order dated 31.8.2007 passed by the District Forum (North), Tis Hazari, Delhi in Compliant case No. C-267/07) Sh. Kavinder Singh, Prop. Of M/s V.K. Garments, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi 110084 Appellant Through Sh. S.K. Rai, Advocate Versus 1. Reliance Communications Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group, Reliance Communciations Ltd. Vijaya Building, 17, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi 110001 2. Reliance Infocom Ltd. 11th Floor, Vijaya Building, 17, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi 110001 3. Reliance Industries Ltd. Registered Office at 3rd Floor, Maker Chambers IV, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Respondents CORAM Justice J.D. Kapoor President Ms. Rumnita Mittal Member1
Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the Judgement.
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not.
Justice J.D. Kapoor (Oral)
1. Appellant obtained a retailership of the respondent for selling service of the telephone connection on the basis of commission charges and entered into an agreement with the respondent by depositing a security of Rs. 50,000/- . After some time, some dispute arose between the parties as appellant alleged that respondent had not paid requisite commission and the contract was terminated. The security deposit was not refunded. Feeling aggrieved, appellant filed the instant complaint before the District Forum seeking refund of security deposit.
2. Vide impugned order dated 31.8.2007, the complaint was dismissed on the ground that there was no relationship of service provider and consumer between the parties.
3. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
4. Admittedly the appellant obtained retailer ship of the respondent on commission basis for selling services of the respondent to the actual consumers. On the face of it, it is not a case where the appellant had availed any services of the respondent. Instead he was selling services of the respondent to the actual consumers i.e. end consumer. He had obtained a retailership on commission basis and did not hire any other kind of service which falls within the ambit of section 2(1)(o) of the C.P. Act. Service has been defined under section 2(1)(o) which is as under:
Service means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service.
5. Similarly, Consumer has been defined under section 2(1)(d) as under:
Consumer means any person who
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment , when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose ; or
(ii) hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose.
6. Any contract of dealership or retailer ship is not a contract which comes within the ambit section 2(1)(o) of the C.P. Act. Consumer is one who purchases goods or avail services directly from the service provider and for further transmission of the services or goods.
7. Explanation provided in section 2(1)(o) also does not come to the help of the appellant for the simple reason that this clause includes use by a person of goods bought by him or services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of his use.
8. In the instant case, the appellant did not avail the services of the respondent at all for his own use. If at all there was any contract it was a contract of dealership or retailership. By no stretch of imagination any dealer or retailer can avail services of the main service provider for the purpose of his own use. It is a sort of civil contract between the parties and not contract arising from the definition of service as defined under section 2(1)(o) of CP Act and the definition of Consumer as defined under section 2(1)(d).
9. The District Forum has placed reliance upon the view taken by the National Commission reported as (1994 CP) 14 (NC) which has ruled that franchise holder running and maintaining STD/PCO hirer of service of telephone department is not a consumer vis--vis Telecom Department. The concept of availing service is that the person who avails the service and use services for himself and not by way of dealership or retailership, for instance, agent of service provider like insurance companies etc does not became consumer qua Insurance Company.
10. On the aforesaid premises, appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit.
11. F.D.R./ Bank Guarantee, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith after completion of due formalities.
12. A copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
13. Copy be sent to Presidents of all the District Forums.
Announced on the 4th December, 2007.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member rk